Talk:Photosensitive epilepsy/Archive 1

ad
ad...Television screens

Something got mixed up here: for any kind of televised imaging technique it is rather not the refresh rate (indirectly yes) but rather the content that can capture a flashing.Slicky 09:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

clarification
When speaking of the frequency of trigger stimuli, IMO this article could benefit from a clarification as to whether it is the frequency of the pattern (red+blue flash = 1 cycle) or the frequency of the flashes (red = 1 cycle, blue = 1 cycle). ~ Eidako 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Disney and flash rates
Does anyone have a reference for this information on ABC/ESPN and the flashing logos? Dupont Circle 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss reverts
A question was asked at WP:help desk about these edits and reversions:, , , etc.

They appear to be relevant and well sourced. What is the reason they were reverted? And why is nobody attempting to explain the reverts either here or on user talk pages? Any time there is revert after revert there should be a discussion, not continual reverting. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections were repeatedly being added by one user who was blocked for harassing another editor. Nakon  13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They were first added by one IP, then by a different IP (who could be the same user), by a logged in user, then by a different user. So three or four users (plus myself) think they are relevant. Is that particular material tainted merely because the first user who inserted it is a bad user? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They're the same person. The account that added it was registered two minutes before the edit.  The other account has only one previous edit.  Nakon  16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Please look past the "who" to the "what". The material appears to be relevant and well sourced. I've looked at the references. I found about this at WP:EAR from one of the tainted users, but suppose that I independently ran across it and thought it would be relevant to this article. If I inserted the material, would you revert it? Sbowers3 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a version its now reached Fox news if Wired wasn't good enough of a source. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unprotect the article, it wasn't even vandalized in the first place. I swear, Wikipedia is becoming a place for people with no real life power to become an admin and go on power trips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.49.114 (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

winter games add on ramble removed
i removed this second paragraph from the "2012 winter games" section of the article.

"This ad for the 2012 London Olympics did not only affect those with photosensitive epilepsy negatively. I saw it on Youtube, and have played video games all my life, with no adverse affects. After seeing the ad I felt seasick for a good half an hour, I don't know how someone could've seen that as appropriate in any measure for the mass public to see. It reminds me of the infamous Pokemon episode, where thousands of Japanese kids had seizures, after seeing a certain episode which is never to be aired again. Violet yoshi (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)"

Loricybin (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Video Games
I am currently adding and changing the video game section in the article. any help and recommendations on sources and improvements are appreciated. please ask before changing the contents of that section. thank you. Apolovsky (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Apolovsky
 * You don't have to use the ActiveDiscuss template to make changes. This is a wiki so you can just start editing. That template is used if you plan a major overhaul and are part-way through this. Anyway, thanks for adding to the article. Generally we don't discuss reviews and authors in the article text: just state the encyclopaedic facts. We then use a footnote to give the citation to the article source. We also keep quotations to a minimum (for example, if they are particularly notable or well put) and format the information in our own words. There are templates that help format such citations if you don't fancy doing it by hand. For example:


 * Have a look at WP:MEDMOS for more advice, including tools to help with citations. That whole supplement in Epilepsia (online here) looks useful for expanding this article with reliably sourced information, though searching PubMed may find more recent articles. For example, some of the advice in that article may be becoming out-of-date as folk move away from CRTs to LCDs, which don't flicker at 50hz. Colin°Talk 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Policy
A new policy about Photosensitive Epilepsy is being proposed at Involuntary Health Consequences. Please come and discuss it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sliced and diced
This article has been hacked to pieces since I originally rewrote it using accurately sourced material from the definitive work on PSE (the book mentioned in the bibliography). A lot of anecdotal and poorly sourced information has been added, and useful, correct, sourced details on PSE have been removed. Is there some law that says that good articles have to be torn apart and made into bad articles? The article may well lack citations and sources now, but it was all correct when I rewrote it.

Harding's work on PSE is renowned and considered extremely reliable. It's a lot more reliable than newspaper articles, but I guess most people never go past CNN for their information, and certainly don't bother to read books printed on paper. Many of the questions below would have been answered by the original rewrite. Agateller (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many people will show PSE-like abnormalities in brain activity with sufficiently aggressive stimulation"
"Sometimes diagnostic indicators consistent with PSE can be found through provocative testing with IPS, and yet no seizures may ever occur in real-life situations. Many people will show PSE-like abnormalities in brain activity with sufficiently aggressive stimulation, but they never experience seizures and are not considered to have PSE."

This is confusing. Does it mean these people could get seizures with "sufficiently aggressive stimulation", but are not likely to ever encounter such stimulation in real life, or that they do get "PSE-like abnormalities in brain activity", but somehow avoid the seizures?


 * It's confusing because so much of the originally rewritten article has been changed. It means that Harding and his colleagues found that a great many people will show EEG abnormalities similar to those of PSE epileptics if they receive sufficient photic stimulation.  However, these levels of stimulation are very unlikely to occur in normal life, and the people who show the abnormalities still do not experience seizures.  There's a continuum between people who are totally normal and show no abnormalities and those who are very abnormal, show abnormalities easily, and experience seizures. Harding's point was that many people can show abnormalities under the right conditions, but only a small fraction of people show EEG abnormalities with the kind of photic stimulation that you might see in a video game, and only some of those actually experience seizures when exposed to such stimuli. Agateller (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Some PSE patients have trigger stimuli that are so specific that they are never likely to encounter them in real life. Their PSE may only be discovered by accident in an unusual situation or during examination for other complaints."

Then what about this? These people are (apparently) considered to be "PSE patients" although they are never likely to encounter their trigger stimuli in real life. --Lakefall 17:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Department of Labor
From the article: "The Canadian department of Labor states that the newer lights are problematic for fewer people, but still cause problems for many."

Any chance someone can cite this? I have complex partial seizures under the newer compact fluorescent lights, yet every resource I can find online states that they are safe, that there's no evidence that these cause seizures (usually by organizations advocating for them), etc. Even my friends don't believe me. I'd love to find a reliable source stating that they "cause problems for many." It's a very isolating experience.

74.46.61.149 (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like that was added in April 2008 by an anonymous editor. The closest I've found on the agency's website is this, which is a petition that says -- supported by a news story in The Daily Mail -- that some people have complained about adverse effects (but, N.B., zero actual seizures), and to which Health Canada says, in politely restrained terms, that self-reports by unnamed individuals in British tabloids do not exactly constitute a well-conducted, properly controlled scientific study.  The charity website that is cited as supposedly supporting this claim currently says almost exactly the opposite.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Some patients are more sensitive with their eyes closed"
This is a confusing line. It's confusing because the paragraph starts by discussing patterns, and patterns can't be seen with the eyes closed. Perhaps by the end it has moved on to discussing bright lights, which could be seen even through closed eyelids, but this needs to be clarified. It's further confusing because it directly follows the assertion that looking through one eye is usually much less likely to cause a seizure. Does that apply to the patients who are more sensitive with their eyes closed, or would it not work for those patients, or are we talking about different kinds of stimuli anyway? 81.131.47.230 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Public responsibilities"
The last paragraph of the Public responsibilities section contains a sentence:

"The hackers, part of Anonymous blamed the Church of Scientology for the attacks saying they were made to hurt their image."

which makes no sense. Maybe it is missing one comma, or one too many (but still not incredibly clear..), or it might start with "part of anonymous" dropping "the hackers". Whoever wrote it please clarify.

HumphUK (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Flicker frequency
From what I understand, the frequency in time of the flickering light is critical to triggering seizures, with the region between 1–20 Hz (especially 3–10 Hz) being the highest risk. In searching the entire article, the word "frequency" appears only a few times, and gives little information about this important parameter. Can anybody find some solid references about this? --Reify-tech (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Client-side precautions
IMO this article could use some info on common clent-side precautions against pse-triggering images. Do any major web browsers have built-in options to limit gif framerate or disable gif animations by default? What are the most popular browser extensions? -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Photosensitive epilepsy in fiction
PSE comes up a couple of times in The Andromeda Strain (film). 1) A science researcher misses a key item when PSE is triggered by a flashing indicator on her microscope. 2) Later the same researcher suffers a seizure caused by the strobe lights for the facility's alarm. While the film closely follows the book I don't know if PSE was used in the book.

I'm thinking a good place to mention the film is in the Society and culture section but wanted to see how editors felt about that as the existing article only covers PSE in the real world and not fictional instances. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see that included - it's a pretty prominent, relatively accurate/sympathetic depiction in fairly well-known fiction. DanEfran (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not Okay.
Currently, the web design section states "(Basically, it is OK to flash more than 3 times in a 1-second period if the flashing is small enough or low contrast enough.)" That is not in the listed source, and from admittedly unverifiable personal experience, it is 'false. 96.255.9.115 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be worth outright deleting that statement. &mdash;ajf (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The source in fact lists the following reference, which does state as much: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#general-thresholddef I'll add it to the citations. --70.26.250.118 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification (Law section)
The link in the "Law" section that talks about NY passing a law requiring PSE warnings on packages and stores leads to a NY bill about video games that didn't seem to pass. According to this, it looks like the "Actions" part should at least include passing senate, assembly and being signed by the governor (or overrided). The other source also shows that the bill was never voted on (also true for all versions of the bill). I couldn't find any information about the linked bill/obligatory epilepsy warnings in the NY laws, and in the section "Miscellaneous" (the bill tried to add it here) the only mention of video games is in 396-KK, which says "shall include a mechanism... to prevent the display... containing certain content or having certain ratings..." and doesn't mention epilepsy warnings. I couldn't find anything about in being passed by googling either - be it video game related or not. This article also talks about proposing, not passing a bill.

Even more, the word "packages" is not even present in the wording of the original bill. In the end of 2017 the article's wording switched from "laws... have been proposed" to "a law... was passed" (with a typo) without updating the source.

It seems like the text was changed without checking and has survived multiple edits. So, either it links to a wrong bill, or contains false information.

In addition, this section lacks other examples (for example, the mentioned in the "Web design" USA's Rehabilitation Act regulation). I propose either to link the correct passed bill (so far it appears that it doesn't exist), or to rewrite this section to include information that laws about epilepsy warnings in video games has been proposed in the past in NY and mention Rehabilitation Act's demands to governmental sites here. In addition I've found a similar bill that was proposed in Philippines back in 2014 - no information about it passing and I don't know anything about Philippines' laws to search whether similar bills were passed.

--31.130.18.75 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Irregular patterns?
Do irregular or aperiodic patterns (for example, a flickering light whose fluctuations in intensity form a pink noise or white noise spectrum, rather than just a single frequency and its harmonics) still cause this? The article isn’t clear on this point. My guess is “no” (given the way seizures work). I don’t have the condition myself so I can’t test it out. 2600:1014:B011:9D00:6D01:A09C:E1CA:76B6 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)